Re: [Fab-user] status of "occasional droped lines of output" bug 32

[Christian Vest Hansen]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Steve Steiner
(listsin)<address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On Aug 9, 2009, at 5:50 PM, Jeff Forcier wrote:
>>>
>>> Cool idea, though.  Finding "the fabric installation dir where I'm to run
>>> my
>>> dir/ls command" is probably not going to be that much fun ;-0.
>>
>> How so? I was just thinking of using e.g. os.path.dirname(__file__).
>> Since we're SSHing to localhost and running the test from localhost,
>> that ought to get us what we need, unless I'm missing something.
>
> I was more thinking of the various ssh types of ssh servers you might run
> into and where they might leave you file-system-wise.
>
> Like, can you even locally ssh into yourself on Windows?  Are most people
> running linux boxes running ssh servers?  I do on my servers, but not on my
> dev laptop, for example.

I think paramiko can be used to implement server-side parts of SSH in
addition to the client-side stuff that we currently use. That could be
an option.

>
>>> IOW, a test against a known host on the Internet lets us test the whole
>>> stack, against a known quantity, and gives the fewest variables in all
>>> tests.
>>
>> Valid points. After thinking about it, I'm not sure I'm happy with the
>> idea of opening up even a limited user to the public, however =/ call
>> me paranoid but it's just asking for me to get rooted because of some
>> silly vulnerability in "ls" or whatever the user is given access to.
>>
>> I know that in the past there used to be free "get an SSH shell for
>> doing IRC or whatever" hosts out there; if those still exist they
>> might potentially come in handy for this. Not sure I have the $$$ for
>> another full-fledged "sandbox" VPS for this purpose, which would of
>> course be another solution. (I'd rather not ask people for handouts on
>> this either, but that's not to say I would turn down a
>> guaranteed-to-be-valid-for-the-long-term offer :))
>
> I understand completely.  In my other life, I run a hosting/web development
> company so I'm way more familiar with that "paranoid" feeling.  You're not
> paranoid...they *actually are* out to get you!
>
>>> Writing mock objects for easily created real-life objects has never, in
>>> my
>>> experience, been worth the effort.  This is especially true now when
>>> real-life resources are so cheap and easy to set up.
>>
>> I agree in principle; for *now* I was (surprisingly) able to easily
>> test this particular issue by mocking the SSH channel object, but I'm
>> definitely still open to the "live test" setup once it becomes
>> necessary. Once the "easy to mock" turns into "kind of a pain to mock"
>> or "oh god I hate mocking" :)
>
> Understood.  I'm working on a project now where mocking the servers would be
> almost more work than the product itself.  The server side will accept
> requests and return responses in XML or JSON, things have rate limits,
> timeouts, changing status (think building a cloud server), etc.  I just told
> them they'd have to give me an account to test it against...
>
> I wish I had a test to run for you on this but I've not seen this problem.
>
> Regards,
>
> S
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fab-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fab-user
>



-- 
Venlig hilsen / Kind regards,
Christian Vest Hansen.